| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/22/2013 01:38:16 AM · #1 |
The Wall Street Journal has just released a rather provocative and enlightening article, detailing the rise of the paramilitary police units in the United States, and the subsequent change in methods of policing.
Really a fascinating read, and I for one am damn glad to see it published. |
|
|
|
07/22/2013 08:14:55 AM · #2 |
here is the problem as i see it.
when the criminals out arm the cops, our police need to be trained and armed to have the upperhand.
IMO, you are damned if you do and damned if you dont. if you dont identify a threat and neutralize the media screams why aren't we ready, if you are proactive to a threat like this or say the search for the Boston bombers, the people complain that our rights are being infringed in order to keep us safe.
Message edited by author 2013-07-22 08:15:25. |
|
|
|
07/22/2013 10:56:36 AM · #3 |
Only the problem is that the instances where the cops are outgunned are far and away the minority. SWAT teams (and similar militarized police units) are being used in cases that simply don't justify such an approach. Several examples are in the article, like the Tibetan monks.
Even the author says such units do have a place in law enforcement, their use shouldn't be as widespread as it currently is. |
|
|
|
07/22/2013 11:59:34 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Only the problem is that the instances where the cops are outgunned are far and away the minority. SWAT teams (and similar militarized police units) are being used in cases that simply don't justify such an approach. Several examples are in the article, like the Tibetan monks.
Even the author says such units do have a place in law enforcement, their use shouldn't be as widespread as it currently is. |
true, but there are cases, so just like every other situation the police want to ALWAYS have the upperhand. im just playing devils advocate, i think government is way overreaching in what it needs to do to protect the people, erring on the side of over protection to our detriment.
when the media and public screams that they aren't prepared when something happens, can you blame the police for going overboard? |
|
|
|
07/22/2013 12:35:29 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Mike:
when the media and public screams that they aren't prepared when something happens, can you blame the police for going overboard? |
YES, yes I can... Just like victims families should NOT control the sentencing of offenders, the hyper active media pandering to ratings should not control policy. A VERY SMALL part of the media does have a role to play but we are talking about the rags in this discussion.
In way way too many scenarios that's exactly what is happening now. I was at the Boston fireworks on the 4th and the military presence - I don't care what your label says, weapons like that put them in the military camp - on display was disgusting. If that happened in China then it would rightly be called saber rattling by a military state. |
|
|
|
07/22/2013 12:45:24 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Only the problem is that the instances where the cops are outgunned are far and away the minority. SWAT teams (and similar militarized police units) are being used in cases that simply don't justify such an approach. Several examples are in the article, like the Tibetan monks.
Even the author says such units do have a place in law enforcement, their use shouldn't be as widespread as it currently is. |
true, but there are cases, so just like every other situation the police want to ALWAYS have the upperhand. im just playing devils advocate, i think government is way overreaching in what it needs to do to protect the people, erring on the side of over protection to our detriment.
when the media and public screams that they aren't prepared when something happens, can you blame the police for going overboard? |
Yes, I can. Especially when their actions result in unnecessary deaths of the very people they are supposed to "Protect and Serve" |
|
|
|
07/22/2013 02:23:04 PM · #7 |
Let's just take a quick look at how search warrants are being served these days.
Don't answer your door in under 15 seconds? The police WILL open it for you.
Often they'll just use a simple battering ram, but if SWAT is there, or if someone's bored, things might get a bit more interesting:
Sorry we destroyed your house
A somewhat reasonable breach. Until the drove through the house six times.
Better get those bars off your windows and doors. Guilty or not, that's for the court to decide, but the police WILL destroy your house if you're a suspect.
Secure your Wi-Fi router!
Message edited by author 2013-07-22 14:23:47. |
|
|
|
07/22/2013 02:30:47 PM · #8 |
| if you know what's good for you, don't eff with these guys... |
|
|
|
07/22/2013 02:40:19 PM · #9 |
| One of the most telling facts about this is how the police refer to the population they are supposed to serve as "civilians" while excluding themselves from that designation. They're NOT the military, they're civilians too. Too often the police have the mentality and actions of a military occupying army, not a civilian law enforcement agency. |
|
|
|
07/31/2013 05:00:31 PM · #10 |
I'm all for the Police having sufficient fire power to handle situations that arise. Sometimes SWAT tactics or arrest methods, although well intended, may be too extreme for the specific situation. That's bound to happen for a variety of reasons. I guess, the Police community as a whole, feels that the benefits outweigh the risks.
One of the specifics I'm particularly concerned about is what I feel is to the over use of tasers by Police. There have been many documented cases where people were killed by the use of this tool. In most of these cases I'm sure the punishment didn't fit the crime. In that I mean unless deadly force was threated against an Officer then deadly force is not the reciprocal response. People have lost their life by resisting arrest. According to Amnesty International, between 2001 and 2008, 351 people in the United States died after being shocked by police Tasers (I apologize that I couldn't find more current statistics but I would guess the incident rate has risen).
So one might say, well, then don't resist arrest. Herein is where the problem lies. You have drug or alcohol induced individuals who are impaired. Do they deserve risk of death? Just as importantly you have medically impaired people. People that may be suffering from dementia, for example, that don't understand simple directions and were not intending to be combative or uncooperative. Do they deserve risk of death? What if someone suffers from a heart arrhythmia also while at the same time mental impairment. Now they are at even greater risk to possibly die from a taser.
I think there are more humane forms of containing an individual and tasers should be reserved for the last resort when other methods failed. Just saying...
I do want to end by saying I respect the job that Police do on a daily basis. They are the line in the sand between order and disorder. We need them and I appreciate them. Just so it's clear whose side I'm on.
Message edited by author 2013-07-31 17:01:02. |
|
|
|
08/01/2013 06:36:20 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Trotterjay:
...One of the specifics I'm particularly concerned about is what I feel is to the over use of tasers by Police. There have been many documented cases where people were killed by the use of this tool. In most of these cases I'm sure the punishment didn't fit the crime. In that I mean unless deadly force was threated against an Officer then deadly force is not the reciprocal response. People have lost their life by resisting arrest. According to Amnesty International, between 2001 and 2008, 351 people in the United States died after being shocked by police Tasers (I apologize that I couldn't find more current statistics but I would guess the incident rate has risen).
So one might say, well, then don't resist arrest. Herein is where the problem lies. You have drug or alcohol induced individuals who are impaired. Do they deserve risk of death? Just as importantly you have medically impaired people. People that may be suffering from dementia, for example, that don't understand simple directions and were not intending to be combative or uncooperative. Do they deserve risk of death? What if someone suffers from a heart arrhythmia also while at the same time mental impairment. Now they are at even greater risk to possibly die from a taser.
I think there are more humane forms of containing an individual and tasers should be reserved for the last resort when other methods failed. Just saying...
|
While I can appreciate the intent of your comments, the sad truth is that there are more people in the USA that die from lightning than from tasers See link.
One could also argue that dealing with someone via the use of a taser is most certainly not as terminal as the use of a gun.
Just another person's view.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/01/2013 07:03:57 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Trotterjay:
...One of the specifics I'm particularly concerned about is what I feel is to the over use of tasers by Police. There have been many documented cases where people were killed by the use of this tool. In most of these cases I'm sure the punishment didn't fit the crime. In that I mean unless deadly force was threated against an Officer then deadly force is not the reciprocal response. People have lost their life by resisting arrest. According to Amnesty International, between 2001 and 2008, 351 people in the United States died after being shocked by police Tasers (I apologize that I couldn't find more current statistics but I would guess the incident rate has risen).
So one might say, well, then don't resist arrest. Herein is where the problem lies. You have drug or alcohol induced individuals who are impaired. Do they deserve risk of death? Just as importantly you have medically impaired people. People that may be suffering from dementia, for example, that don't understand simple directions and were not intending to be combative or uncooperative. Do they deserve risk of death? What if someone suffers from a heart arrhythmia also while at the same time mental impairment. Now they are at even greater risk to possibly die from a taser.
I think there are more humane forms of containing an individual and tasers should be reserved for the last resort when other methods failed. Just saying...
|
While I can appreciate the intent of your comments, the sad truth is that there are more people in the USA that die from lightning than from tasers See link.
One could also argue that dealing with someone via the use of a taser is most certainly not as terminal as the use of a gun.
Just another person's view.
Ray |
Canadian police seem to be very different in all respects. I'd guess you don't deploy your tasers because someone is being verbally abusive. |
|
|
|
08/01/2013 09:23:33 PM · #13 |
| Lightning is an act of God by which we have no control. Taser use is an act of a human by which we do have control. There lies the difference. (Respectfully) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/10/2025 10:29:57 AM EDT.
